Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Can you totally wear out a lower?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Leetonia, Ohio
    Posts
    1,803
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bkb0000 View Post
    has anyone ever actually seen egged out FCG holes? i have to wonder if that isn't just a great theory that doesnt happen.

    i imagine in hundreds of thousands of rounds you might start to egg out the holes. if i had an M16 and could afford the ammo to do so, i'd most definitely shoot it as much and as often as i could... with abandon.

    and keep in mind- there's nothing you can do to that receiver that isn't repairable. a good shop could weld and re-drill holes.
    Yes, my M16's were severely egged. Unknown number of rounds through it before I owned it, but it had to have been a large amount as the auto-sear was also worn-out. Replaced the FCG and that is when I found that the holes were egged. KNS pins were used for their original designed usage. Speaking to a local old school C3 guy he said they saw it pretty often, he couldn't give me numbers but he was unsurprised to see a 25+ yo F/A weapon being WDFO.

    Most weld shops will not touch a M16 lower. I recall that when I was trying to correct the problem mine had I couldn't find anyone reputable that was the least bit interested in the job.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Squirrel!
    Posts
    2,156
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    So, with this in mind, what is the consensus on KNS Anti-Rotational pins?

    On TOS, I got the distinct feeling they were a marketing ploy, but based on the reports here, it would seem they may actually serve a purpose (although the actual benefit of using them may not be seen until 50,000+ rounds).

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,770
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Artos View Post
    Aren't there companies out there that do some specialized work on class iii lowers for civi's when they do have damage from accident or otherwise?? I heard of a lower that had been welded up one side due to the gun getting squashed?? Anyway, they said the workmanship was first class and the gun ran fine.

    Kinda hard to give up on a 5 figure lower.
    Yea http://users.zoominternet.net/~picpl...inbushings.htm

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    4,710
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    What about carrier tilt from piston uppers? Would that be anything to be concerned about?
    If you aren't armed when you take a dump in your own home then your opinion on what is a practical daily carry weapon isn't interesting to me.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Squirrel!
    Posts
    2,156
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Bell View Post
    What about carrier tilt from piston uppers? Would that be anything to be concerned about?
    Carrier tilt isn't an issue as far as the lower receiver itself is concerned; it only affects the receiver extension. Carrier tilt wear usually starts off severe and then levels out after the initial damage/gouging is done. The only way it would be an issue is if you let it wear completely through the receiver extension, at which point you'd have more important issues than simply worrying about your lower receiver.
    Last edited by Skyyr; 04-01-10 at 12:28.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    312
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan_Bell View Post
    Most weld shops will not touch a M16 lower. I recall that when I was trying to correct the problem mine had I couldn't find anyone reputable that was the least bit interested in the job.
    M60 Joe did work on a friends RDIAS host Colt 9mm lower. He had the hammer pin holes egged out, M60 Joe installed bushings (I think he drilled the lower to fit the bushings, not 100% on that though) and KNS pins. He also ramped the bolt to smooth things out. The gun runs perfectly now.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    171
    Feedback Score
    0
    When I was in the Air Force stationed in South Korea in the early 90's, we were issued M16s, not M16A1s, but no forward assist M16s, probably made in the 1960s. They were old, but functioned well, with no noticeable lower receiver damage; only some the triangular handguards replaced by the round handguards.
    The opinions expressed on this board are mine and mine alone. They do not represent any departments or organizations I may be a member of.


    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." - ILN, 4/19/30

    "He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative." - Varied Types

    G.K. Chesterton

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    740
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Killjoy View Post
    When I was in the Air Force stationed in South Korea in the early 90's, we were issued M16s, not M16A1s, but no forward assist M16s, probably made in the 1960s. They were old, but functioned well, with no noticeable lower receiver damage; only some the triangular handguards replaced by the round handguards.
    It's a good assumption since Colt's Model 601 was first fielded in 1961, and the M16A1 was adopted as the standard rifle in 1967. You should really only find non-FA rifles in the Air Force as the Army adopted the Model 603 as the XM16E1 in 1964 at the same time the Air Force adopted the model 604. Tho difference was the Army ordered rifles with forward assists, and the Air Force did not. There could be a couple Model 601s and 602 in Army arsenals somewhere, but they never ordered many.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Leetonia, Ohio
    Posts
    1,803
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by .45fmjoe View Post
    It's a good assumption since Colt's Model 601 was first fielded in 1961, and the M16A1 was adopted as the standard rifle in 1967. You should really only find non-FA rifles in the Air Force as the Army adopted the Model 603 as the XM16E1 in 1964 at the same time the Air Force adopted the model 604. Tho difference was the Army ordered rifles with forward assists, and the Air Force did not. There could be a couple Model 601s and 602 in Army arsenals somewhere, but they never ordered many.
    That would make sense except that the Air Force armorers seem to get bored and look at what parts they have lying around and then put together another configuration whenever you allow them the time.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    740
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan_Bell View Post
    That would make sense except that the Air Force armorers seem to get bored and look at what parts they have lying around and then put together another configuration whenever you allow them the time.
    Yeah, I know. But the Army shouldn't have non-forward assist uppers in their inventory except a few 601 or 602 uppers.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •